1166: Overriding the judicial Power

                                                       (Added September 6-13, 2025)

This needs more thinking and I could be wrong below. 

The word "below" above refers to the "First Posting", and after further thinking, I say, first of all, the title should have targeted the supreme court not the judicial power. And because of the prohibition on making ex post facto laws, Congress cannot directly with its legislative power do work involving ruling on past events, which courts can do with its judicial power. But how much need there could be for that when there is something as sufficient as the good Behaviour requirement? For congress also has the power to establish tribunals, and when the supreme court is not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement such court would supersede it. Also, as discussed in the singleness chapter of my book, targeting Congress does not imply targeting congress, and therefore despite the restriction above congress can establish itself as the tribunal (Although I myself usually refer loosely in that regard).

      

                                                                 (First Posting)

 I cannot see it in any way probable that the distinction between legislative and judicial would have been left this loose had it been not intended for congress to have the power to rule overriding the supreme court even at the level of individual cases. Moreover, there is also the support of what the  exclusion for bill of attainder suggests in that regard. But I think that there could be hesitation on this because of unjustifiable fixation on that establishing the judicial power in the writ was to counter congress and not as guidance and/or because of a concern that it may not get involved enough.